JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the “M.V. Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated 30th April, 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nashik (the “Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1077 of 2013 partly allowing the Claim Petition of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 and awarding compensation of an amount of Rs.31,29,856/- including amount of 'no-fault' liability against the Appellant and Respondent No.4 who were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of the petition till realization of the entire amount. The Tribunal further held that out of the total compensation, 80% of the amount to be paid to Respondent No.1 being the wife of the deceased, and 10% each to be paid to Respondents No. 2 and 3 being sons of the deceased with proportionate interest. Out of the share of Respondent No.1, the amount of 50% was directed to be invested with any nationalized bank of her choice for a period of five years with liberty to withdraw the interest quarterly and balance to be paid to the wife by account payee cheque.

2. By an order dated 20th March, 2023, this Court has condoned the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. By a further order dated 7th August, 2023 this Court held that the interests of justice would be served if the appeal is finally heard at the stage of admission and accordingly the matter is listed the matter for final disposal.

3. The brief facts in this matter are as follows. That on 15th November, 2012, Govind Prabhu Patil, being the husband of the Respondent No.1 and the father of Respondents No. 2 and 3, was proceeding by his Scooty Pep bearing Registration No. MH-15-CP-5373 from Sinnar to Pandhurli road, at that time, the driver of the luxury bus bearing Registration No. MH-04-FK-857 dashed the Scooty Pep in which Govind Prabhu Patil sustained serious injuries and succumbed to his injuries.

4. An offence was registered against the driver of the luxury bus bearing Registration No. MH-04-FK-857 (the “offending vehicle”) by Sinnar Police Station, Nashik. The said vehicle was owned by Respondent No.4 and driven by his driver and insured with the Appellant for a period of one year from 17th July, 2012 to 16th July, 2013. It is not therefore in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured by the Appellant on the date of the accident.

5. The Respondents No. 1 to 3, being the legal heirs of the deceased Govind Prabhu Patil who was aged about 56 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.50,745/- per month from his service as Commercial Inspector GR 4, Central Railway, Mumbai C.S.T. Mumbai, preferred their claim application before the Tribunal for a compensation of Rs. 40 lacs.

6. Respondent No.4 failed to appear before the Tribunal although served and the claim proceeded ex-parte against the Respondent No.4 vide order dated 17th July, 2015.

7. The Appellant filed its Written Statement wherein it inter alia denied the claim of the Respondents No. 1 to 3. The Appellant submitted that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Scooty Pep bearing Registration No. MH-15-CP-5373 and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle viz. luxury bus bearing Registration No. MH-04-FK-857 and therefore the Appellant was not liable to pay compensation. The Appellant further raised statutory defences stating that there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy such as want of confirmation of insurance policy, unauthorized passengers, the driver not holding a valid and effective motor driving license at the time of the accident to deny its liability to pay compensation. The Appellant therefore prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition with costs. The Appellant did not examine any witness in support of its defence.

8. The Tribunal examined the report and printed FIR, spot panchnama, ferista, chargeshe